Stevens v. Bunting

Filing 10

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 6 TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 ; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 9 TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 ; ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS [ 8] IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF 1 WITH PREJUDICE; AND TERMINATING THIS CASEORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-6-2016. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JEFFREY E. STEVENS,
Case No. 3:16-cv-312
Petitioner,
v.

Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

JASON BUNTING, WARDEN
Marion Correctional Institution
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 6) TO THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 5); OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 9)
TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 8);
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 5) AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 8) IN THEIR
ENTIRETY; DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF
(DOC. 1) WITH PREJUDICE; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the Objections (Docs. 6, 9) filed by Petitioner Jeffrey E.
Stevens (“Stevens”) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 5) and
Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 8), – all of which recommend that the Court
dismiss with prejudice Stevens’ Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On
August 8, 2016 Stevens filed his Objections (Doc. 6) to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 5)
and on August 29, 2016, Stevens filed his Objections (Doc. 9) to the Supplemental Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 8). Respondent, Warden of the Marion Correctional Institution, (the
“Warden”) did not file a response to those Objections (Doc. 9) or to the other Objection (Doc. 6)
filed by Stevens. As the time for the Warden to file a response to Stevens’ Objections has
expired, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has

made a de novo review of the record in this case. In response to the Supplemental Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 8), Stevens does not assert any new substantive objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.

Upon review, the Court finds that Stevens’

Objections (Docs. 6, 9) have no merit, and were adequately addressed by the Magistrate Judge in
both the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 5) and Supplemental Report and Recommendations
(Doc. 8). As a result, no further analysis is required here.
Stevens’ Objections (Docs. 6, 9) are not well taken and are hereby OVERRULED. The
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 5), Supplemental Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 8), in their entirety, and rules as follows:


The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Petition for Habeas Corpus
Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1);



Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the Court’s conclusion, Stevens
is DENIED a certificate of appealability; and



The Court CERTIFIES to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that any appeal
would be objectively frivolous and therefore Stevens should not be permitted to
proceed in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio.
October 6, 2016

s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2